Former U.S. Inspector General on Affirmative Action

6/24/2013 12:31PM

The Supreme Court avoided a sweeping ruling on affirmative action in a closely watched case involving the University of Texas, sending the case back to a lower court for a new review. Former U.S. Inspector General Gerald Walpin discusses the implications on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

... I ... affirmative action survive another day for now as the U S Supreme Court on a closely watched case back to a motor court is Monday June twenty flights welcome to lunch break I'm Wendy downs ... Joinus here is former U S inspector general and member of the board of directors of the Center for individual rights jail while in jail and attended ... the Supreme Court oral arguments on the affirmative action case ... on in your also author of of of center half of the Supreme cool and this is the Constitution ... just published in a part in the right guy to have your right here on the show ... just refreshing phone's memory this case was about Abigail Fisher she's a white woman who was rejected for admission to the University of Texas at Austin in two thousand ATAC the University for submissions process AVP unfairly used ... racial quotas now Supreme Court set into one ... case it gets back to the Lord Court ... of first or that what does that actually mean for this case don't wear when you read the opinions ... it means that the Supreme Court ... has really modify ... the formula that local achieved use ... they had in the Gregory Case meagre any case ... it allowed consideration of race at the University of Michigan and at the two thousandthree case with this would allow ... the policies of affirmative action to continue for admissions procedure and in that opinion in that case ... the court set forth to different standards the head of the incline ... one was ... to give special deference ... to what the University is set is necessary for its educational policy ... and the other is to apply stricter scrutiny ... now how you can reconcile those two I've been unable to figure out the coins ... strict Stewart's company means ... you've got to really have a terrible burden ... where has ... deference to what to call the college is done is in effect the presumption ... that what they've done is okay so what this means in coming months they'll want a sweeping ruling themselves one way or the other so it will go back ... to the smaller court which initially I handed turned down and dejected Abigail's on this this to drag on ... our team and so what they charge the Lord are we doing the things you need to revisit and look at what shall say what you need to do ... is to apply strict strict scrutiny ... which means that if the races using any manner ... he has to overcome tremendous burdens ... and presumptions against its legality and constitutionality ... and I my thinking is that based on if the local it follows what the Supreme Court he was known ... then ... the one that I get back to the Supreme Court ... I don't think you will because I think the local of the clearing unconstitutional what the Univeristy Texas has said ... any specific with help of the universe to Texas policy for admissions I'd allowing the race to be a consideration is bumping up against the fourteenth amendment why is that the the fourteenth amendment said basically ... we shall not be used to discriminate against any body ... in bed and say only against Glaxo Minerd's against anyone ... in it meant that grace the Constitution was to be color blind ... it was not to involve the question of your color or anybody else's come ... were you surprised that wanted it was a seven to one ruling with the Justice Kagan she I say she did not vote on the issue of conflict of interest ... but were you surprised that the court did not go so far is to actually ... control themselves one way or the other killed them they said you know I want the Lord court to do this well I think they were throwing the ball down ... oh and Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia ... who can carry ... Justice Thomas with a long opinion ... explaining why any treatment of race consideration of race is wrong inherits ... the mind I ... and Justice Chris Cooley are just going with issue an opinion saying in ... innocence ... and since the ... Lakers didn't ask that going to be overruled ... I live with this that basically I would think the better studio whom and when you mention rhetoric and that's that two thousand three days in which point I'm jealous of the court ... stated that it was not really inclined to rule against affirmative action at that point ... it seems that thinking hey shift in and Bintan the last decade when you think is brought them to this point the senses is at this point well even the majority opinion in the two thousandthree two any case ... written by Justice O'Connor ... said ... that we look forward to I'm not quoting exactly but in substance ... with a telephone to the period ... certainly bike twenty five years from now ... when affirmative action will no longer be needed ... I think that they have come to the point ... that that not only is affirmative action not needed ... but then it is contrary to the Constitution the fourteenth Amendment ... right to walk when you're there you're present for the starting to think back in October we finally got her ruling on that ... a little more to come with suitable reports will this I think semester being with this wicket to become the UK expertise appreciate you very much that day